Re: ktap inclusion in drivers/staging/?

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jovi Zhangwei <jovi.zhangwei@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks. An addition question I want to discuss in here is the ktap 
> code structure layout in first patch series, this don't need to 
> dig out any ktap design detail, so we can make agreement on this 
> point, and ease for me to prepare patch series.
> 
> Do I need to prepare patchset target on staging tree or "real" 
> part of kernel? [...]

I'd suggest adding it to the core, i.e. kernel/tracing/ and 
kernel/trace/trace_events_filter.c in particular which includes the 
current filter script interpreter.

(Please also make sure that the Lua copyright notices get carried 
over properly.)

> [...] If target on driver/staging/ktap, then kernel code and 
> userspace code still need to locate at same directory, that many 
> people may don't like it.
> 
> Target on "real" part kernel? - include/trace/ktap (header file 
> common used by interpreter and userspace compiler) - 
> kernel/trace/ktap (interpreter code, ktapvm, pure kernel module) - 
> tools/perf/ktap?(userspace compiler code)
>   As I also agree integrating ktap and perf together, two 
>   subsystem can share many codes, so it's better putting ktap 
>   userspace into perf directory.

Once there's a more split-out submission it will be easier to see 
what belongs where. I agree with Pekka that for the user the UI 
should be integrated and obvious.

I'd also like there to be a natural 'extract the script' 
functionality from an installed tap script. This gives more 
flexibiliy and improves security as well: no hidden, binary-only 
crap, every script installed on a running system should be 
extractable in source form, should be reviewable and modifiable.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/